The issue is that Really only works with a system that doesn’t inherently result in two viable large parties. In a first past the post system like the US, any options other than the major two just end up being spoilers, pulling voters from whichever of the main two parties they are more closely aligned with. So the least wanted set of beliefs is what actually wins in that system.
Yes, when discussing the benefits and disadvantages of voting systems, one of the touted points in favour of FPTP is usually that it’s hostile towards third parties - which leads to extremist parties struggling to get a foothold. We see all over Europe that countries with party-list proportional representation l have had a surge of extremist far-right parties over the past decade or so.
Now, I’m not saying that FPTP is superior, but the issues third parties have within that system is a feature, not a bug.
I don’t know how you can say this while looking at the US. Sure, other systems allow for fringe hard-core extremist parties like, say, NZ First, but the US shows that if the extremist faction isn’t allowed its 10% to 20% of the vote, the extremist faction then promptly takes over the main-stream party closest to its ideology. I.E. the Alt-Right takes over the Republican Party in the US.
FPTP doesn’t seem to have any inbuilt immunity to extremism, as far as I can see living in Trumpland.
Theoretically under potential proportional representation, a MAGA party under Trump with the size of his base would be a deciding vote in government - even should he fail to form a coalition government, as what is currently represented as democrats and republicans would be split into several smaller parties. In current FPTP - provided Harris wins - Trump is kept out of government.
You’re completely right though that Trump has managed to radicalise one of the two major parties - and a large part of the population. The overarching voting system can’t prevent the spread of ideology - far right has been making gains all over the world, FPTP or not.
For the record, I don’t think FPTP is a good system, I was only discussing the merits of third party voting and it’s pointlessness in a system explicitly designed to shut them out.
Yes, when discussing the benefits and disadvantages of voting systems, one of the touted points in favour of FPTP is usually that it’s hostile towards third parties - which leads to extremist parties struggling to get a foothold. We see all over Europe that countries with party-list proportional representation l have had a surge of extremist far-right parties over the past decade or so.
Now, I’m not saying that FPTP is superior, but the issues third parties have within that system is a feature, not a bug.
I don’t know how you can say this while looking at the US. Sure, other systems allow for fringe hard-core extremist parties like, say, NZ First, but the US shows that if the extremist faction isn’t allowed its 10% to 20% of the vote, the extremist faction then promptly takes over the main-stream party closest to its ideology. I.E. the Alt-Right takes over the Republican Party in the US.
FPTP doesn’t seem to have any inbuilt immunity to extremism, as far as I can see living in Trumpland.
Theoretically under potential proportional representation, a MAGA party under Trump with the size of his base would be a deciding vote in government - even should he fail to form a coalition government, as what is currently represented as democrats and republicans would be split into several smaller parties. In current FPTP - provided Harris wins - Trump is kept out of government.
You’re completely right though that Trump has managed to radicalise one of the two major parties - and a large part of the population. The overarching voting system can’t prevent the spread of ideology - far right has been making gains all over the world, FPTP or not.
For the record, I don’t think FPTP is a good system, I was only discussing the merits of third party voting and it’s pointlessness in a system explicitly designed to shut them out.